If there's one consistent piece of criticism that gets lobbed in Canonical's and Mark Shuttleworth's direction, it's that they do not contribute enough code - or anything else for that matter - to the Free software world. Mark Shuttleworth has apparently had enough, and has written a very, very lengthy blog post detailing how he feels about this criticism.

"Non code contributing/hacking users are seen as annoying leechers and their problems are a nuisance.

Users are most definitely not leechers, because many of them are giving back what they can. It's the company that is taking from the linux community to build their own product without giving back.

Indeed, it's a really annoying attitude some people harbor. Not everyone can contribute code and not everyone can contribute _good_ code. But everyone can contribute atleast something, be it one-on-one help every now and then on IRC channels, writing guides, tutorials or manuals, maintain a community portal and so on. Those are all still very important things and the Linux world would not be where it is if everyone just did code but not the other stuff. And Ubuntu DOES contribute community portals, guides, tutorials and all those things.

You are confusing things. Whatever support is given in Ubuntu forums, or Ubuntu IRC channel, is geared towards Ubuntu, and benefits the Ubuntu community.

Contributions on distribution-agnostic topics is a contribution to the linux community, but that's contribution != collaboration. Collaboration requires shared development.

Some Ubuntu people might collaborate, and others contribute, but not CANONICAL. Get it?

Besides, even if someone wasn't contributing anything IMHO they'd still have the right to choose and use F/OSS software. After all, isn't the whole point of it all to provide software for everyone regardless of what they do, where they do, how they do, or who they are?

Nobody is complaining about Ubuntu users. Nobody is complaining about the Ubuntu distribution it itself. The complaint is about CANONICAL. Do you get it? The company.

The company has the resources, the company has the expertise, the company is the one that is deciding to keep their development confined to their product.

Repeat after me: CANONICAL. "

Look, your argument would have more traction if Canonical kept its development closed source. Right now their code, their tools, their ideas, etc... are publicly available and can be studied, modified, re-purposed. People can learn from it. It is useful work done and work that could benefit everyone.

Look, your argument would have more traction if Canonical kept its development closed source. Right now their code, their tools, their ideas, etc... are publicly available and can be studied, modified, re-purposed. People can learn from it. It is useful work done and work that could benefit everyone.

Perhaps because they use GPL code, and therefore are legally bound, thus they don't have a choice. Or perhaps because it's part of their user experience; give the user the feeling of freedom.

They do give their users freedom, which as good thing, but nobody is denying that; the point is they don't collaborate. If Canonical would accept that fact, we could move on, but Mark's post does anything but accepting they are an island separated from the rest of the community.